Only politicians would try sell the idea that best way to reduce
environmental threats to the oceans is to spend more money on
ice hockey rinks, parks and other recreational facilities in cities.
But that's precisely what some of our elected officials are trying
to do with a bill called the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
of 1999 (CARA), introduced ostensibly to offset the environmental
effects of off-shore oil and gas drilling.

Introduced in the House of Representatives by Don Young (R-AK)
and John Dingell (D-MI) and in the Senate by Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), CARA (H.R. 701/S.25) would allow coastal
states to keep a portion of the $4 - $5 billion in oil royalties
generated annually from drilling on the outer-continental shelf
(OCS).1

Although it was originally envisioned that OCS revenues would
be split between the states and the federal government, with 60%
going to the states and 40% going to the federal government, the
states never got much of the money.2 Last year, for example, the
six states that have OCS drilling off their coasts collected just
$65 million - equal to between 1.3% and 1.6% of the federal government's
OCS revenues.3 The OCS royalties have instead ended up federal
government's general fund where, until recently, they were used
to mask the real size of the federal budget deficit.4

The idea of sharing drilling royalties with some of the coastal
states makes a great deal of sense since these states are the
most vulnerable to the environmental risks posed by oil drilling.
As Mark Van Putten, president and CEO of the National Wildlife
Federation noted in recent congressional testimony, "...the
lion's share of [environmental] impacts [from OCS drilling] are
borne by America's coastal zones... These coastal zones are home
to over half the nation's population, play a critical role in
absorbing flooding and blunting storms, provide important spawning
habitat for commercially valuable fisheries and harbor a disproportionate
fraction of rare and endangered wildlife."5

Yet, coastal states aren't the only states that would benefit
financially from passage of CARA. While the bill would set aside
27% of OCS revenues for an "Outer Continental Shelf Impact
Assistance Fund" to be used for mitigation of the environmental
damage caused by oil drilling, 23% of the revenues would be allocated
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a federal program
used to buy private land for outdoor conservation, recreation
and development projects (including indoor sports complexes),
urban parks and basketball courts.6 As Representative Young himself
has noted, "In Alaska, we could use [LWCF funds] ...for access
trails, hockey rinks and other projects..."7 One wonders
what the scientific basis is for building city parks, hockey rinks
and the like to help reduce the environmental harm caused by offshore
drilling operations. Given the vast quantity of midnight basketball
courts funded by Congress over the past decade to cure the nation's
crime problem, it's a wonder there is any pollution in the oceans
at all.

The real reason for such funding, of course, is politics. Since
only six states have OCS drilling offshore, CARA can't pass with
the votes of congressmen representing OCS states alone. So the
sponsors of the bill decided to sweeten the deal for non-OCS states
- and particularly for states with large congressional delegations.
Under CARA, over 25% of LWCF financial assistance would be distributed
equally to states; 8.4% would be granted based on state population
size; 16% would be reserved for the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery Program and 28% would be reserved for Department of Interior
and Department of Agriculture land acquisition in the Eastern
United States.8

CARA's sponsors have also worked hard to get the environmental
movement and the Clinton Administration on board. The land acquisition
called for in the bill certainly fits in nicely with the Clinton
Administration's Lands Legacy and Livable Communities initiatives,
which, among other things, are designed to preserve green and
open spaces to curb "urban sprawl."9 Transferring more
land from private hands to the government also appeals to the
environmental movement.

But these purchases have property rights groups concerned.
Sponsors of CARA insist the bill doesn't threaten property rights
as it specifically requires "willing sellers" for all
land purchases. But local, state and federal government officials
have become quite adept over the years in applying regulations,
using legal maneuvers and targeting land purchases to convert
unwilling sellers to willing sellers. The Alaska National Interest
Lands and Conservation Act (ANILCA), passed two decades ago, was
also supposed to protect property owners' rights - including the
rights of miners. But as Ray Krieg, who owns property within the
boundaries of several national parks and forests noted in recent
congressional testimony, "Within only seven years of passage
of ANILCA, the National Park Service acquiesced to a friendly
lawsuit filed by environmental organizations and mining in all
Alaska's national parks was shut down. The miners then suffered
years of... insincere and biased mining claim validity determinations...
All designed to exhaust the resources of claim holders and increase
their risk and expense..."10 So much for a willing seller.

Even if CARA could protect property rights, it is still unclear
how buying a retiree's land in the Adirondacks for park expansion
or land outside cities to stop suburban development will benefit
our oceans and shorelines. But that's not what CARA is really
about: It's about congressmen bringing dollars home to their districts.

9 "Transcript of Clinton, Gore Remarks
at Announcement of Land Legacy," U.S. Newswire, January 12,

1999.

10 Ray Krieg's testimony, U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources, March 31, 1999.

# # #

David A. Ridenour is Vice President of The National Center
for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank, where
he oversees the group's environmental and regulatory program.
Comments may be sent to [email protected].